64%...

[Dr.Who]

Short of civil war or total financial collapse, I don't see that happening.

The definition of tyranny is when one ruler has all the power, especially when that ruler is cruel. It is often synonymous with dictator.

Look at the list of dictators below:

http://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_dictators

Did they all seize power in military coups? No, many were elected and still hold elections. Often the countries move from a country not ruled by a tyrant to one that is in a very short amount of time and it comes as a surprise to many.

Is the standard of living so horrible as a result of their cruelty? No, cruelty is not a necessary aspect of their rule and many of the countries on the list have pretty good standards of living.

I the leader cruel despite his giving the people relative freedom? Maybe, again cruelty is not a necessary aspect to the title. Some dictators are considered allies or friends of the US and they rule "benevolently."

Do the people have no freedoms? No, their freedoms are restricted but sometimes not even so much that we recognize the restrictions as bad enough for us to say that the country is not free, i.e. Egypt.

Are there zero other branches of government or zero other leaders in the country? No, the word "all" above in the definition must not be taken too absolutely. There are plenty of examples of tyrants who share their power yet are still classified as dictators.

What is the difference between a king (or president) and a tyrant or dictator? Is it who writes the history books? Is it too subtle to clarify?

Just about every country in the world was once ruled by a dictator and just about every country in the world was not ruled by a dictator before he rose to power. It happens all the time.

Consider the growth of power of the government in the US compared to 200 years ago. Each branch has grown astronomically. Will the competing branches save us? Does it look to you more like they cooperate with each other or more like they check each other? Consider that the political parties influence all three branches of government greatly.

Consider the freedoms that Americans once had that they do not have now (unless one was a slave) in light of the fact that every single law on the books is a restriction of freedom (sometimes justified).

If the tax rate in the US were 85% (it is about 60% now), and the government were able to regulate almost all aspects of living (the cards are on the table today, food and health laws) (name an aspect of life that the someone in government has not proposed regulating) then the government would have the economic means to control 85% of the economy and the social means to control almost all of the culture. The overlap would mean that the government controlled almost every aspect of American life.

Has it ever happened in the US? The constitution grans some pretty broad powers to a president during war. Was Lincoln a dictator (albeit one who intended to step down and did it for the good of the country). Once a leader assumes war powers just what is it that impels him to give them up?

What is the shortest amount of time that it took for a country to move from a free democracy to a dictatorship? The shortest I can think of was all through elections from March of 32 to March of '33. And no war was declared until 1939.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp

 

[dogtowner]

No, it's not too likely. The government has been growing steadily for several decades now.

more like several generations.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I agree with much of that, but I must take exception to your point on health care.

What is eating us alive is entitlement spending, which I suppose includes healthcare costs in Medicare and Medicaid.

Everyone knows controlling entitlement spending is the answer to the budget problem, but the Ds and their media have no intention of controlling spending of any kind. Once the Rs come up with a plan to limit this spending, they will be demonized by the Ds and the media and many will believe them.

odd you leave out Defense....a huge part of our Budget out of SS Medicare and Defense...the only one that polls show a majority think we should spend less on.

 

[Gipper]

odd you leave out Defense....a huge part of our Budget out of SS Medicare and Defense...the only one that polls show a majority think we should spend less on.

The Ds and Rs are both willing to cut defense. So, there is agreement on that part of the budget.

There is no agreement to cut entitlements because your beloved Dems are intending to demigod the issue in the hopes of damaging the Rs with the American public.

No doubt that is leadership in your book.

 

[BigRob]

odd you leave out Defense....a huge part of our Budget out of SS Medicare and Defense...the only one that polls show a majority think we should spend less on.

Even the outright elimination of the entire defense budget would not solve our debt issues.

There is going go have to be cuts to entitlement programs, and unfortunately certain politicians would rather play to fear than face reality.

 

[PLC1]

Even the outright elimination of the entire defense budget would not solve our debt issues.

There is going go have to be cuts to entitlement programs, and unfortunately certain politicians would rather play to fear than face reality.

They're probably afraid that they'd be voted out of office if they actually faced reality and made the taxpayers and recipients of government money of all sorts face it with them.

Do you think their fears are well grounded?

 

[Gipper]

They're probably afraid that they'd be voted out of office if they actually faced reality and made the taxpayers and recipients of government money of all sorts face it with them.

Do you think their fears are well grounded?

No.

Do you know anything about the Tea Party? It is a large party and has had considerable influence on events the past two years. Many Rs and independents want the same thing as the TP.

That thing is reducing government spending...dramatically.

You have indicated that Americans do not want government welfare programs cut. This is not true and just another lie promoted by the left.

 

[Cosmo]

You have indicated that Americans do not want government welfare programs cut. This is not true and just another lie promoted by the left.

Which "welfare programs" do Americans want cut and how do you know this?

 

[Gipper]

Which "welfare programs" do Americans want cut and how do you know this?

Go to the Tea Party website and educate yourself.

 

[Cosmo]

No thanks. Could you please provide some evidence for your claim that Americans want "welfare programs" cut? Preferably evidence that specifies exactly which programs?

Thanks.

 

[PLC1]

No.

Do you know anything about the Tea Party? It is a large party and has had considerable influence on events the past two years. Many Rs and independents want the same thing as the TP.

That thing is reducing government spending...dramatically.

You have indicated that Americans do not want government welfare programs cut. This is not true and just another lie promoted by the left.

I didn't say "welfare programs". Sure, if you ask the average taxpayer, most will say, cut welfare.
Cut SS for the elderly? Cut subsidies of all kinds? Cut programs that bring home federal money to a representative's district? Hardly. Raise taxes to make up the gap? Never!

The tea party is well intentioned, but not grounded in reality. The reality is that programs of all kinds must be cut, and taxes raised, in order to balance the budget. Anyone suggesting that anything but the other guy's program be cut, or any taxes but the other guy's taxes be raised, is likely to get voted out of office.

 

[Gipper]

I didn't say "welfare programs". Sure, if you ask the average taxpayer, most will say, cut welfare.
Cut SS for the elderly? Cut subsidies of all kinds? Cut programs that bring home federal money to a representative's district? Hardly. Raise taxes to make up the gap? Never!

The tea party is well intentioned, but not grounded in reality. The reality is that programs of all kinds must be cut, and taxes raised, in order to balance the budget. Anyone suggesting that anything but the other guy's program be cut, or any taxes but the other guy's taxes be raised, is likely to get voted out of office.

We need to define terms. All entitlement programs are welfare programs. All of them.

No taxes need raising. We have discussed that ad nauseum and you failed to learn from it. Cut government spending drastically. Balance budget only. No more deficit spending. Clinton's last budget was $1.4 Trillion which was only 11 years ago. Lets go back to that budget.

The Tea Party is grounded in reality. They know the continually deficit spending will destroy us. You are the one not grounded in reality.

 

[Cosmo]

The Tea Party is grounded in reality.

Wow. I had to read that sentence like four times for it to sink in.

Is Social Security an "entitlement"/"welfare" program?

 

[dogtowner]

The Tea Party is grounded in reality.

Wow. I had to read that sentence like four times for it to sink in.

Is Social Security an "entitlement"/"welfare" program?

In its current form, yes.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Even the outright elimination of the entire defense budget would not solve our debt issues.

There is going go have to be cuts to entitlement programs, and unfortunately certain politicians would rather play to fear than face reality.

well no one said it would be the only thing..Im just saying that Republicans keep talking about the need for big cuts...but the big cuts only seem to come from things Dems want..nothing they like ( or fear cutting)...also never from raising more revenue...

republican "financial" cuts have more to do with politics then Debt....there is a reason many ( not all) only care about Debt...when the other guy is in office.

I think we will need to see cuts in many areas...defense included ( though in no way would I suggest eliminating it...or even half of it...not saying we could not do it and be safe, but its not realistic and would require a huge shift in US priority and hurt influence world wide that helps us economically...thus paying for part of itself.